Ohio Judge Orders Woman to Spend Next Five Christmases in Jail

[Nobexliberty]

Surprised no one said leap day

Wish I had thought about that.

 

[jkob]

This 100% sounds like cruel and unusual punishment to me

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Watch when the man who was also charged with five counts of tampering with records gets 10 years. We'll see how cruel and unusual the system really is with regards to the amount of time a man will get versus a woman.

If the probable 15 days she will spend in jail and five years probation was so cruel and unusual, she should have opted for the 15 years.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Watch when the man who was also charged with five counts of tampering with records gets 10 years. We'll see how cruel and unusual the system really is with regards to the amount of time a man will get versus a woman.

If the probable 15 days she will spend in jail and five years probation was so cruel and unusual, she should have opted for the 15 years.

Do you not get my reasoning behind why this punishment sucks?

 

[Carson]

A government employee violating their public trust to aid and abet illegal aliens is a serious offense.

This was also a crime that would allow further abuse of our nations laws.


"Prosecutors say 44-year-old Betina Young – a former license agency employee – accepted payments from applicants to falsify records showing they had verified their immigration status. She has pleaded guilty."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/23/betina-young-sentenced-5-christmases-in-jail_n_3638918.html

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Do you not get my reasoning behind why this punishment sucks?

I do.

I suppose any punishment would suck.

Me, I would be more concerned with the fines than with spending three days a year in the county jail.

The punishment is leaps and bounds better than what the man who helped in the scheme will undoubtedly get and is leaps and bounds better than the 15 years she could have gotten.

People act as if this is some sort of crucifixion. This woman should thank her lucky stars the judge didn't give her 15 Christmases. You know, with no break.

Five felonies and the woman gets probably 15 days and five years probation. Ask anyone the odds of that or how cruel that really is. I am going to bump this thread when Sekou Kpoto (the man who was charged along with her whose trial begins Tuesday) gets years in the state penitentiary.

 

[Grubb556]

The courts defined cruel and unusual (from wikipedia) as:

The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

So IMO, in this case, it is degrading to her human dignity, since the women is being forced to miss Christmas for the next 5 years.
It is arbitary, since I doubt other people who committed same crime got the same sentence.
Not sure if society rejects this punishment (this board certainly does)
The punishment seems unnecessary, because the fact that she is allowed to not be in jail for 364 days suggests she is not a threat.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

The courts defined cruel and unusual (from wikipedia) as:

The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."
"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."
"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

So IMO, in this case, it is degrading to her human dignity, since the women is being forced to miss Christmas for the next 5 years.
It is arbitary, since I doubt other people who committed same crime got the same sentence.
Not sure if society rejects this punishment (this board certainly does)
The punishment seems unnecessary, because the fact that she is allowed to not be in jail for 364 days suggests she is not a threat.

Here's the thing, this woman was facing over fifteen years in jail. She was charged with five felonies for charging anywhere from $700 to $1,000 a piece around 95 times to change a person's immigration status when issuing a license. There was a man also charged in the scheme.

You mention it being arbitrary since other people who committed the crime didn't get the same sentence. That is true. They probably spent five Christmases in prison, but these were consecutive days, not you show up for three days a year on this date. Had this woman have gotten the 15 years, I doubt many in America would be calling her punishment cruel or unusual. That is odd considering that locking someone up for years is far more cruel than cutting them a break for 15 days with stipulations.

This woman could have taken the time if it was that cruel or unusual. I am sure this judge would have been happy to oblige. Any other judge wouldn't have given her the choice and would have promptly gave her time. So dare I say I am speaking for this woman when I say, it is not cruel, it is somewhat unusual but no more unusual on a person than being confined to a small cage with nothing but the same gender. Perhaps someone should get her opinion. Being sentenced for five felonies and receiving 15 days and five years probation would be heaven-sent to the majority of defendants. (all.. including this woman) I would do longer than that just for unpaid fines. It is somewhat funny that people would classify this as cruel and unusual. It is in fact a bone thrown and I bet this woman thanked God.

Moving on to the next point you addressed is that this woman is not a danger to society. Well frankly I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of prisoners aren't a danger to society. The person who shoplifted a candy bar for example, [and received four years, I'd add] is not a danger to society. First thing first, in today's society, which to be clear is not optimal or even Just, it does not matter whether or not you are a threat to society. Ask the Florida mother who received a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years (20 Christmases) for firing a warning shot. Jail is used as a deterrent and punishment rather than for rehabilitation. It should be both in my ideal society. The person who breaks into homes or steals property ought to have a few days to think about their life. They aren't necessarily a danger to anyone but that doesn't mean you don't get punished for your actions.

What is more cruel and/or unusual - A person receiving five or ten years straight, as the man charged along with her probably will get, or a person receiving a sentence of five Christmases?

People seem to be out of touch if they think that this woman is upset about this sentence. She wasn't arrested on spot. She went home. Slept in her own bed. That's unusual. Cruel? I don't think so. One person even went as far as to suggest this woman doesn't show up. What a great idea. Then instead of the three days once a year she will face sentencing like the average person and possibly receive fifteen years. (That one makes me question if people read what they type)

I would be hard pressed to find someone charged with a felony who wouldn't rather take three days for five Christmases instead of even just one year straight. This woman had fifteen of them. Which threat or no threat she probably would have gotten. (dare I say if she wasn't a woman or didn't work for the State!) We'll have to wait and see what Kpoto gets sentenced to. No doubt it will be far more cruel and unusual. (though the average person probably would not consider so) Indeed, it would just be business as usual.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You mention it being arbitrary since other people who committed the crime didn't get the same sentence. That is true. They probably spent five Christmases in prison, but these were consecutive days, not you show up for three days a year on this date. Had this woman have gotten the 15 years, I doubt many in America would be calling her punishment cruel or unusual. That is odd considering that locking someone up for years is far more cruel than cutting them a break for 15 days with stipulations.

This woman could have taken the time if it was that cruel or unusual. I am sure this judge would have been happy to oblige. Any other judge wouldn't have given her the choice and would have promptly gave her time. So dare I say I am speaking for this woman when I say, it is not cruel, it is somewhat unusual but no more unusual on a person than being confined to a small cage with nothing but the same gender. Perhaps someone should get her opinion. Being sentenced for five felonies and receiving 15 days and five years probation would be heaven-sent to the majority of defendants. (all.. including this woman) I would do longer than that just for unpaid fines. It is somewhat funny that people would classify this as cruel and unusual. It is in fact a bone thrown and I bet this woman thanked God.

Moving on to the next point you addressed is that this woman is not a danger to society. Well frankly I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of prisoners aren't a danger to society. The person who shoplifted a candy bar for example, [and received four years, I'd add] is not a danger to society. First thing first, in today's society, which to be clear is not optimum or even Just, it does not matter whether or not you are a threat to society. Ask the Florida mother who received a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years (20 Christmases) for firing a warning shot. Jail is used as a deterrent and punishment rather than for rehabilitation. It should be both in my ideal society. The person who breaks into homes or steals property ought to have a few days to think about their life. They aren't necessarily a danger to anyone but that doesn't mean you don't get punished for your actions.

Well, if you break into someone's home, there's more than that than just theft. That's actually a danger to society in most cases. Although I support flogging rather than prison for it.

But yeah, locking someone in a cage like that IS cruel and unusual IMO. Much more so when its obvious the judge knows that there's no danger to society.